PDA

View Full Version : (3.5 vs PF) Elf size



Morquard
2009-09-15, 09:19 AM
Hi

Does anyone know why the size of elves and half-elfs has been changed, when all other races are still the same height?

Kurald Galain
2009-09-15, 09:37 AM
I blame the elven lobbyists.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 09:43 AM
Hi

Does anyone know why the size of elves and half-elfs has been changed, when all other races are still the same height?

Because Jason is an elf fanboy and doesn't realize that exact height and weight mean almost nothing in DnD.

It should be very clear that I dislike Jason. Pathfinder in general doesn't irritate me as much as the arguments we had with him did (by we, I mean every optimizer that tried to offer legitimate critique and advice regarding what was broken so Pathfinder would be a decent system, which Jason more or less completely ignored).

Cyclocone
2009-09-15, 09:54 AM
Don't mess with the elven mafia. (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=353)

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 10:02 AM
Don't mess with the elven mafia. (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=353)

Pimp Krusk>>>>>>>>>>Elven Mafia. What are the fairies going to do to someone like him? Nothing.

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 10:24 AM
Because Jason is an elf fanboy and doesn't realize that exact height and weight mean almost nothing in DnD.

It should be very clear that I dislike Jason. Pathfinder in general doesn't irritate me as much as the arguments we had with him did (by we, I mean every optimizer that tried to offer legitimate critique and advice regarding what was broken so Pathfinder would be a decent system, which Jason more or less completely ignored).

Is Jason really an Elf Fanboy?

While I like PF from what I've seen of Jason's game philosophy longterm if he stays as Head Designer and keeps his philosophy he'll sooner or later reach the point where I won't want to play it.

That said I can see why he didn't take on anything you or other optimisers suggested. Based on the reasons he's given for various decisions he's made, he's a "roleplayer", as in "there are are "roleplayers" and "rollplayers" and "roleplayers" are clearly superior". Under that philosophy all optimisers are the spawn of satan. Say hello to dad if you get to hell before me. :smallwink:

Stephen E

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 10:37 AM
Is Jason really an Elf Fanboy?

While I like PF from what I've seen of Jason's game philosophy longterm if he stays as Head Designer and keeps his philosophy he'll sooner or later reach the point where I won't want to play it.

That said I can see why he didn't take on anything you or other optimisers suggested. Based on the reasons he's given for various decisions he's made, he's a "roleplayer", as in "there are are "roleplayers" and "rollplayers" and "roleplayers" are clearly superior". Under that philosophy all optimisers are the spawn of satan. Say hello to dad if you get to hell before me. :smallwink:

Stephen E

Judging by how OPed the PF Elf is (+2 Int, +2 Dex, CL boosts for SR, save bonuses), he is either a fan or has no idea how to balance an LA 0 race (both is a safe bet).

He didn't take our advice for 2 reasons:


He thought we were dissing his system.
He focused more on profit than balance, and knew that an unbalanced system draws more attention and profit than a balanced one (WotC's mindset for 4E is the same).


Seriously, he outright banned people for posting even the slightest hint that he was wrong about his Polymorph "fix" (nerfed, but it still didn't solve the bookwork involved which was the 2nd biggest problem behind the spell in the first place, if anything he made the bookwork worse). BTW, his Gate nerf? Completely overlooked the Candle of Invocation, meaning he ignored one of the biggest Elephants in the Room despite numerous attempts to point it out (his version of Gate costs 10K to summon something instead of 1000xp, and the Candle of Invocation still has the Gate function while only costing 4200gp).

There's a reason I believe that business executives should not have a hand in game development. It is, more often than not, a bad idea. A very bad idea. His mindset crippled the potential PF had. If he listened to more of CO's posts (including Frank and K's efforts to point out flaws with both 3.5 and PF), PF would be selling more than 4E is.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-15, 10:44 AM
He focused more on profit than balance, and knew that an unbalanced system draws more attention and profit than a balanced one (WotC's mindset for 4E is the same).

...

There's a reason I believe that business executives should not have a hand in game development. It is, more often than not, a bad idea. A very bad idea. His mindset crippled the potential PF had. If he listened to more of CO's posts (including Frank and K's efforts to point out flaws with both 3.5 and PF), PF would be selling more than 4E is.
So you're saying that if PF had a designer less focused on profit, it would be making more of a profit now?

Doc Roc
2009-09-15, 10:47 AM
So you're saying that if PF had a designer less focused on profit, it would be making more of a profit now?

No, we're saying that we wish he'd listened because we wish he'd listened. It's impossible to say where the money lives, Kurald. One thing I know is that I've never been able to predict what people would like or pay for. :S

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 10:48 AM
Elves lost trance so I'm not sure the designer was an elf fanboy.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 10:50 AM
So you're saying that if PF had a designer less focused on profit, it would be making more of a profit now?

If the R&D department responsible for balancing PF ignored Jason's meddling and took matters into their own hands, yes.

Here's the big issue: Jason was the only one on the PF design team to ever even read the forums a majority of the time. Everyone else heard what he wanted them to hear. Had any of them gone online and listened to what CO said over what Jason told them, PF would have lived up to the hype behind it.

Living up to the hype spreads good karma for PF, which prompts others to purchase, or at least read and preview the system. If they saw it was better balance-wise, the incentive to buy it and implement its fixes would be higher, thus increasing profit for PF.


Jason never realized this.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 10:53 AM
No, we're saying that we wish he'd listened because we wish he'd listened. It's impossible to say where the money lives, Kurald.

Ummm... Sinfire certainly seems to be saying he knows where the money lives.

But in his defence, I would at least like to think that making a good product and then promoting it heavily could net you more profit in the long run than shameless money-grubbing (which I see as Sinfire's accusation; I in know way know enough about the situation to level that accusation myself).

Doc Roc
2009-09-15, 10:54 AM
Elves lost trance so I'm not sure the designer was an elf fanboy.

Trance never had a whole lot of mechanical backing. And technically doesn't even exist in the SRD.


Ummm... Sinfire certainly seems to be saying he knows where the money lives.

But in his defence, I would at least like to think that making a good product and then promoting it heavily could net you more profit in the long run than shameless money-grubbing (which I see as Sinfire's accusation; I in know way know enough about the situation to level that accusation myself).

Sin is a wiser man than me.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-15, 10:57 AM
Okay, I see what you're getting at. By paying more attention to certain people on his forums, PF would have gained those as an additional fanbase, without alienating their current fanbase. Whereas now they appear to have alienated the former without measurably increasing the latter.

BRC
2009-09-15, 10:58 AM
Pimp Krusk>>>>>>>>>>Elven Mafia. What are the fairies going to do to someone like him? Nothing.
That's just not fair. NOTHING can stand up to Pimp Krusk.

Darcand
2009-09-15, 10:59 AM
Judging by how OPed the PF Elf is (+2 Int, +2 Dex, CL boosts for SR, save bonuses), he is either a fan or has no idea how to balance an LA 0 race (both is a safe bet).

He didn't take our advice for 2 reasons:


He thought we were dissing his system.
He focused more on profit than balance, and knew that an unbalanced system draws more attention and profit than a balanced one (WotC's mindset for 4E is the same).



All the PF races got significant boosts, the idea being to bring races that were already LA 1 or weak 2 down to LA 0 and make them playable.

And you forgot a few other reasons he might not have taken your advice.

-It wasn't good. Not to be rude, just saying that when everyone thinks their advice is the best advice, someone has to be wrong about it.

-It wasn't popular. You have to understand that this board is unusually heavy into optimization and the game breaking issues here aren't really all that game breaking alot of other places. Those people play tested too.

As far as why elves are so tall in PF? Blame WoW for forever changing the way elves are pictured.

John Campbell
2009-09-15, 11:01 AM
Irrelevant knee-jerk Pathfinder-hate aside, I think it's to bring the depiction of elves in line with pretty much every other one ever (leaving aside, y'know, Keebler's and Santa's). Even Forgotten Realms elves are not short.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 11:01 AM
Okay, I see what you're getting at. By paying more attention to certain people on his forums, PF would have gained those as an additional fanbase, without alienating their current fanbase. Whereas now they appear to have alienated the former without measurably increasing the latter.

Well, not even that; but rather, by paying attention to people pointing out flaws in the system, the system could have been made better, and a better product can be expected to sell better. I think that's the reasoning, independent of the numbers of people present on any given forum to serve as a customer base.


As far as why elves are so tall in PF? Blame WoW for forever changing the way elves are pictured.

WoW? Really? Where, as far as I'm aware, elves are among the slightest and shortest of the "medium" races? Not, say, Tolkien?

Fax Celestis
2009-09-15, 11:03 AM
Elves lost trance so I'm not sure the designer was an elf fanboy.

Lightning Warrior Fallacy.

BRC
2009-09-15, 11:06 AM
Lightning Warrior Fallacy.
Is that the one that says "All Class features are equal". I rember the lightning warrior was a full-caster wizard, with full BAB, no ACF and heavy armor proficiency, balanced because "It didn't get a familiar and couldn't specialize".

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 11:09 AM
Is that the one that says "All Class features are equal". I rember the lightning warrior was a full-caster wizard, with full BAB, no ACF and heavy armor proficiency, balanced because "It didn't get a familiar and couldn't specialize".

Don't forget the d20 HD!

Doc Roc
2009-09-15, 11:12 AM
-It wasn't popular. You have to understand that this board is unusually heavy into optimization and the game breaking issues here aren't really all that game breaking alot of other places. Those people play tested too.


This board is not what I would consider an optimization board. Not hardly.

Darcand
2009-09-15, 11:13 AM
WoW? Really? Where, as far as I'm aware, elves are among the slightest and shortest of the "medium" races? Not, say, Tolkien?

Night elves in WoW stand about a foot taller then humans. Blood elves are roughly the same height.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-15, 11:16 AM
Night elves in WoW stand about a foot taller then humans. Blood elves are roughly the same height.

So do Tolkien's elves, and they predate WoW by, hey, that's remarkable, seventy years.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 11:18 AM
Night elves in WoW stand about a foot taller then humans. Blood elves are roughly the same height.

Hey, you're right. I was thinking of the line in WC3 about night elves looking like elves but "far too tall", thinking it implied normal elves were shorter than human height. I hadn't realized night elves were so tall.

However! Seriously, I suspect Tolkien has more to do with the perception that elves have no business being short.

Person_Man
2009-09-15, 11:24 AM
I think that most game designers and gamers who spend a large amount of time on games (collecting, reading, posting, homebrewing, etc) have a tendency to be very "fiddly" with the rules. Like most gamers, Jason probably wrote what works for his gaming group(s), and what he thought was cool. So he fixed some of the glaring problems with 3.5 (dead levels), ignored others (Polymorph), and created a few new problems (removing most of the good options for core-ish melee combat). And then he gave us his take on artwork, style, fluff, etc.

It's a real shame. After my first 4E game, I was was very excited about Pathfinder. But Pathfinder is essentially just created another fiddly campaign world like Eberron or Iron Kingdoms. Which is fine. I for one love reading people's homebrew worlds. But it didn't really fix 3.5.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-15, 11:24 AM
So do Tolkien's elves, and they predate WoW by, hey, that's remarkable, seventy years.

Oh noes! LOTR is totally like WOW now!!

Golden-Esque
2009-09-15, 11:29 AM
As far as why elves are so tall in PF? Blame WoW for forever changing the way elves are pictured.

You'll want to thank Warhammer for that, actually. In World of Warcraft, the Night Elves are taller then humans, but the Blood Elves and High Elves, who are more akin to the High Elves of Dungeons and Dragons, are shorter then humans; the lore reason being that they were cut off from their primary source of magical energy (the Well of Eternity).

In Warhammer, all elves are taller then humans, but you shouldn't blame people for prefering one style of elves over another; least you turn into a "Back in my day, we had to walk to school in the snow, up hill both ways!" kinda guy.

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 11:31 AM
-snip-

Three things.

One is that, while it is possible Sinfire's opinions were wrong, he's also one of the biggest names in D&D optimization there is. If he says something, you seriously consider it. And from my understanding, it was a lot more than just Sinfire pointing out problems with the system, it was a large chunk of the optimization community, all of whom were ignored, banned, or fanboy-mobbed.

Second, GitP isn't really that big into optimization. It's more there's a few people who really know what they're doing from other boards who also come here, and a bunch of us just steal their knowledge.

Thirdly, LotR is the one with tall elves (and is also the origin of elves being better at zomgeverything).

Kurald Galain
2009-09-15, 11:35 AM
One is that, while it is possible Sinfire's opinions were wrong, he's also one of the biggest names in D&D optimization there is.
I wouldn't expect most people to know that.

Unless you are deeply into optimization yourself, it is nearly impossible to distinguish "one of the biggest names" giving good advice from some random user giving arbitrary advice.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 12:02 PM
All the PF races got significant boosts, the idea being to bring races that were already LA 1 or weak 2 down to LA 0 and make them playable.

And you forgot a few other reasons he might not have taken your advice.

-It wasn't good. Not to be rude, just saying that when everyone thinks their advice is the best advice, someone has to be wrong about it.

Some of us were a little harsh (CoL and Psychic Robot loved poking fun at Paizo after their legitimate advice got rejected, but prior to that they were very honest about wanting to help).

The main arguments were based on facts. Like the following:


Polymorph's three main problems are bookkeeping, power level, and time consumption. It takes a lot of effort on the player's behalf to use Polymorph, but very little to actually break it. It is also time-consuming to use the ability on the fly without premade-stats for every form you will be using. Jason ignored two of these points, while making the spell weaker. He went the opposite direction with the two points he ignored.
Candle of Invocation is underpriced for its CL, effects, and uses/day. He completely overlooked it, despite several dozen people practically shouting at him (even some of his fans, who were banned as a result). He didn't even listen to the fact that even with his "nerf" to Gate, Pun-Pun is still possible.
Fighters. Dear god, Fighters. In the two posts of mine that were on Paizo (only one of which I actually posted and was subequently ignored), the Fighter was the topic. His "fix" nerfed it while putting it off of the RNG (Random Number Generator). He overlooked so many posts regarding the Fighter that it is absurd. THe PF fix is little more than a Copy-Pasta'ed fix from the forums, one of the poor ones at that. I can go into detail, but the post would be huge.
Wizards became stronger than they used to be (even with the nerf to spells). Specialization has no drawback other than loss of the Generalist's best features. In fact, optimizers considered PF Wizard 20 better than even an Incanatrix build. Counter-intuitive.
Feat nerfs. Dividing the Combat feats into two feats does not aleviate the feat problems of the melee-classes (it actually makes things worse).
I can provide a full list of problems he overlooked simply by asking CoL, OW4, and Frank Trollman. They can provide far better answers than I can.



-It wasn't popular. You have to understand that this board is unusually heavy into optimization and the game breaking issues here aren't really all that game breaking alot of other places. Those people play tested too.

Prior to PF being printed, the only reason this board even had optimizers posting was because Gleemax was being run by Gamer_0. Brilliant Gameologists is heavier in optimization than this forum (if anything, this forum is only 20% optimization, the rest is in favor of other topics).

Pathfinder's Playtest amounted to:


People who actively tried to shatter the system, to find where the major breaks were and identify what needed to be fixed or addressed. Most of this was from CO, and was backed by heavy evidence pointing out why things were broken and what needed to be done. The majority was overlooked.
People who were having fun with the system. Sparse amount of optimization was in this category, what little that was Jason did address. This category contributed the most to PF's final printing. A majority of the information in this category was relatively useless balance-wise.



I wouldn't expect most people to know that.

Unless you are deeply into optimization yourself, it is nearly impossible to distinguish "one of the biggest names" giving good advice from some random user giving arbitrary advice.

I don't expect people to know it either. Names like Logic Ninja, OW4, and Treantmonklvl20, yes. Me? Save for a small subset of posters who I've interacted with, I don't expect people to know me.

If anything, even BG and Gleemax rate me fairly low on the proverbial totem pole. My name is known to those who read my works, but others usually don't know me. Prior to the most recent screw up on Gleemax, my optimization advice was somewhat accepted by those who didn't know me because I parroted common optimization knowledge. When my personal opinion popped up for topics I am considered the "expert" on (Incarnum, some minor Wizardry tricks, the Erudite), it was more common for people to listen. But those topics were sparse.


One is that, while it is possible Sinfire's opinions were wrong, he's also one of the biggest names in D&D optimization there is. If he says something, you seriously consider it. And from my understanding, it was a lot more than just Sinfire pointing out problems with the system, it was a large chunk of the optimization community, all of whom were ignored, banned, or fanboy-mobbed.

I am flattered. Yes, there were some big names involved. I'm not sure about the exact list, but I know for a fact that Frank and Keith, OW4, and several of the major contributors from 339 were outright rejected.

Crow
2009-09-15, 12:17 PM
One is that, while it is possible Sinfire's opinions were wrong, he's also one of the biggest names in D&D optimization there is.

Yeeeeeeaaaaah...Whatever dude. You should know that this means absolutely jack around here. Wrong is wrong, and right is right, no matter whose mouth it comes out of.

The problem is, most of what is considered "right" and "wrong" when it comes down to these Pathfinder arguments comes down to subjectiveness and personal preference. As someone who doesn't care about the system one way or the other, I've seen both sides of the argument post complete bullcrap, and I've seen them post some really good points too. However, certain people will post bullcrap and get extremely vocal or even hostile in defending it. Some of the "Big Names" were particularly guilty of this, and in some cases had perfectly valid points passed over because of the rudeness with which they stated their opinion. This also happens on both sides. Some people seem to be taking this thing personally, and the whole thing is getting seriously old. It's making everyone look like a jackass.

As to the elf thing, I would imagine it was changed for *gasp* flavor purposes. No, it doesn't really matter in any mechanical sense. But who said Pathfinder had to be an exact clone of D&D 3.5? I think it's pretty clear by now that Pathfinder is intending to go it's own way on a number of issues, mechanically and flavor-wise.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 12:26 PM
Fighters. Dear god, Fighters. In the two posts of mine that were on Paizo (only one of which I actually posted and was subequently ignored), the Fighter was the topic. His "fix" nerfed it while putting it off of the RNG (Random Number Generator). He overlooked so many posts regarding the Fighter that it is absurd. THe PF fix is little more than a Copy-Pasta'ed fix from the forums, one of the poor ones at that. I can go into detail, but the post would be huge.

Are talking about how Paizo fans were in a uproar about Fighter getting DR?

Doc Roc
2009-09-15, 12:28 PM
If anything, even BG and Gleemax rate me fairly low on the proverbial totem pole. My name is known to those who read my works, but others usually don't know me. Prior to the most recent screw up on Gleemax, my optimization advice was somewhat accepted by those who didn't know me because I parroted common optimization knowledge. When my personal opinion popped up for topics I am considered the "expert" on (Incarnum, some minor Wizardry tricks, the Erudite), it was more common for people to listen. But those topics were sparse.



I am flattered. Yes, there were some big names involved. I'm not sure about the exact list, but I know for a fact that Frank and Keith, OW4, and several of the major contributors from 339 were outright rejected.

Sin, I'll be blunt. I hold you in much higher esteem than I hold F&K. Unlike them, you've made things I use regularly. That's certainly just my opinion, but for me you're up there with T_G and Stormwind. I'm always-always grateful for your contributions, one* of which salvaged an entire system of magic for me. Anyone who can't figure out that you know your **** doesn't know theirs.


*The incarnum guide. We all owe you for that one.


So to me, Crow, it sounds like you're failing miserably to consider someone else's opinion because it differs from yours.
Up until now, I've read everything you've posted quite carefully. I don't think you're being fair or kind here.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 12:37 PM
Are talking about how Paizo fans were in a uproar about Fighter getting DR?

Well, there is that, but there's also the fact that he overlooked what made the 3.5 Fighter underpowered and a poor class. Crusader of Logic quoted a post of mine about it, and I've since reiterated and augmented the issues as I became familiar with 3.5's errors. I've posted it here before, but it's been a while. I'll see if I can dig up the post.


Sin, I'll be blunt. I hold you in much higher esteem than I hold F&K. Unlike them, you've made things I use regularly. That's certainly just my opinion, but for me you're up there with T_G and Stormwind. I'm always-always grateful for your contributions, one* of which salvaged an entire system of magic for me. Anyone who can't figure out that you know your **** doesn't know theirs.


*The incarnum guide. We all owe you for that one.

I'm honestly glad I made that guide. It has helped me so much, I don't know what I'd do without it. The more I hear about people using it, the more I know I've contributed something major to the forums.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-15, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't expect most people to know that.

Unless you are deeply into optimization yourself, it is nearly impossible to distinguish "one of the biggest names" giving good advice from some random user giving arbitrary advice.

And, truthfully, I don't give a toss about optimization. Effective? Yeah. I want effective. But tweaking a build so hard it squeals? Too much effort, especially when the rest of the group isn't playing that game.

Crow
2009-09-15, 12:42 PM
So to me, Crow, it sounds like you're failing miserably to consider someone else's opinion because it differs from yours.
Up until now, I've read everything you've posted quite carefully. I don't think you're being fair or kind here.

To be honest, it's getting hard to read any of these things anymore. Sinfire and others (on both sides) have a lot of good points, but some are largely based on preference. As always, I am a firm proponent of just trying out Pathfinder and seeing if it works for your group. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. That will depend on your preference. But I really think this is the best answer to most of the questions posed by PF.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 12:46 PM
To be honest, it's getting hard to read any of these things anymore. Sinfire and others (on both sides) have a lot of good points, but some are largely based on preference. As always, I am a firm proponent of just trying out Pathfinder and seeing if it works for your group. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. That will depend on your preference. But I really think this is the best answer to most of the questions posed by PF.

Three problems:


I am not willing, nor able, to invest in Pathfinder. Likewise for my players.
I am not willing (and nowhere near able) to print out the PF SRD for each of my players.
My friends prefer 4E to 3.5. :/



@Starbuck: Found the post.



1: Feat selection. Their choices are limited to a select few viable feats that make the class dip-worthy. 20 levels for 11 bonus feats is nice, but their choices are extremely limited in value. Power Attack, Improved Trip, EWP (Spiked Chain), and a handful of others (about 6 feats in all, most of which can be easily gained with your normal 7/8 feats). The more feats they are given, the less a Core Fighter will be worth. Adding in splat just makes it worse, as you will quickly find that a lot of feats are not worth the effort it takes to gain them (High Sword Low Ax, anyone?).

2: Swift and Immediate actions. The caster's best friends are the Fighter's red-headed step-children. They get virtually nothing from those two types of actions, something the Bo9S tried hard to correct with the Boost and Counter options. Giving them something to do with these is a great way to improve the class, as it allows them to make effective use of their actions/turn.

3: Movement. Spellcasters can freely take Move actions without being seriously penalized. Fighters? Can't move more than 5ft/round without feeling the hurt. Reducing the Full Attack to a Standard action is a bit much, but something does need to be done about this. Rangers can get away with this (both when ranged and with TWFing due to Travel Devotion being so useful for Swift Hunter builds and Tumble being a class skill), and every Martial Adept can make up for taking move actions via strikes.

4: Multi-Ability Dependency. Almost as bad as the Monk or Paladin. Fighters need a good Int for Combat Expertise if they plan on taking it before 9th, a good Dex if they plan on taking Combat Reflexes at all (and many fighter builds practically require it), a good Con so they don't die within one round of tanking, and a good Str so they don't deal crappy damage (Power Attack). If they are focusing on the Combat Focus feat tree from PH2, then they also need to have a Wis of 13. On a 32 PB, getting between 13-20 in 4 or 5 different stats is somewhat tedious, and actually doing so will likely bite you in the ass later on (setting each major stat to 14, for example, will indeed punish you at every opportunity because your major stats and Str score are all too low).

5: Item Dependency. The Fighter absolutely cannot function if he loses his primary weapon. He can afford one backup weapon on the standard WBL, anything more than that is suicidal. While he may be able to make due for a short duration, the fact is that he is more limited than a Wizard with no spell component pouch (the Wizard has some spells that don't need spell components, and can even summon temporary spell components with a 1st level spell) while doing so. Tzeentch forbid if the DM ever uses Sundering, MDJ, or the cliche "You are all captured" trick. And Khorne save the Fighter who is in a low WBL/no Magic setting (as the odds of him getting a good weapon to do his job will be slim to none). Many DMs overlook this portion of the game, as every class requires Stat Boosters to function at an even level with appropriate CR Opponents.

PF's fix ignores most of this. The first quote was the part posted on the Paizo forums when CoL quoted me. The latter part is addendum from later on.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-15, 12:46 PM
And, truthfully, I don't give a toss about optimization. Effective? Yeah. I want effective. But tweaking a build so hard it squeals? Too much effort, especially when the rest of the group isn't playing that game.

And such is the difference between "theoretical optimization" and "practical optimization".

Murdim
2009-09-15, 12:49 PM
Found in the Paizo forums by your humble serviteur from in the Paizo forums, here's a topic (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/pathfinderRPGBeta/design/ability/whyTallElves) full of... exemplary... answers, showing off quite clearly the mentality of Paizo staff and their devoted followers about the tall elves / small elves question.

Here's a summary of their global consensus :

_ In D&D3,5/D20, elves are not, to cite editor-in-chief James Jacob, "regal and mySterioUs and aliEn" enough. Pathfinder remedies to this by resetting its elves in the grand tradition of (the Theme Park Version (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheThemeParkVersion) of) Tokien.

_ Having elves being tall is a very interesting and original choice, who doesn't "cater to the present day generation", which is a good thing. At the same time, they're in accordance with the way most people see elves, which is also a good thing. Seriously. To cite Lisa Simpson, "how rebellious... in a conformist sort of way."

_ Five feet tall elves are simply ridiculous. They totally look like Santa's Little Helpers... and fantasy elves have nothing to do with those ones, dammit !

_ It would be politically incorrect to have humans as the tallest base race. Let's make the Race Which Is Simply Better At Everything take this place, and have yet another reason to laugh at the lesser species. Because the reverse would be simply wrong.


EDIT : Ooops, too late. The topic drifted to Yet Another Discussion About The Balance Problems In Pathfinder. Well, I guess I'm useless now.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 12:52 PM
Problem is some people read TO and assume, "I can use in a game".

Like Pun-Pun, it was never met to be released upon a game. It was a monster in a can, but sadly when you release it it never goes back in.

TO should have a warning or something so people don't confuse it with PO.

Matthew
2009-09-15, 01:09 PM
So... the answer is, "they wanted to". Fair enough. Dwarves moved up a size category between AD&D and D20/3e, not a big deal. Maybe Path Finder Elves should be renamed "El'ad'erin" or something... or maybe just Eldar and call it a day.

chiasaur11
2009-09-15, 01:16 PM
Pimp Krusk>>>>>>>>>>Elven Mafia. What are the fairies going to do to someone like him? Nothing.

And the Breccia could take them both.

It's an illegal mob operating in Sam Vime's town. That says something about Chrysoprase.

Ah, fantasy mafias. They are fun times.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 01:34 PM
_ It would be politically incorrect to have humans as the tallest base race. Let's make the Race Which Is Simply Better At Everything take this place, and have yet another reason to laugh at the lesser species. Because the reverse would be simply wrong.

Hold up. How is this politically incorrect? Who's going to be offended here, the nonexistent prissy-boy tree-hugging elves?

Politically correct only applies when someone will be offended to the point that they ignore logic and cease debating a point because of something someone else said.

Furthermore, politically correct can't apply to a fantasy race because no two people have the exact same vision of how that race is supposed to be. We can't find a middle ground to agree upon (though we assume the Tolkien elf is the middle ground, but it is just an example of one person's interpretation of elves), and thus cannot establish political correctness (I'm surprised the spell checker recognizes that word).

Making humans seem supreme isn't offensive if the ones who are supposed to be offended don't even exist.

And in all technicality, humans are the top to the food chain for a reason. We actually are very capable beings, which is why the animals in the MM make no sense at all (Fact: Humans are more enduring than most animal IRL, even though modern day humans may not reflect this. Primitive humans hunted by stalking their prey until it collapsed from exhaustion; we even did so at a casual walking pace at times because we have a higher stamina than most of the animal kingdom). We may be physically weaker than some of the animals, but we can outlast them on sheer stamina alone.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 01:40 PM
And in all technicality, humans are the top to the food chain for a reason. We actually are very capable beings, which is why the animals in the MM make no sense at all (Fact: Humans are more enduring than most animal IRL, even though modern day humans may not reflect this. Primitive humans hunted by stalking their prey until it collapsed from exhaustion; we even did so at a casual walking pace at times because we have a higher stamina than most of the animal kingdom). We may be physically weaker than some of the animals, but we can outlast them on sheer stamina alone.

Wait, Homlo erectus, Homlo habilis, archeaic Homlo sapian, or Australopltheecus?
Erectus use fire and team tactics, Habilis used tools, etc.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 01:44 PM
Wait, Homlo erectus, Homlo habilis, archeaic Homlo sapian, or Australopltheecus?
Erectus use fire and team tactics, Habilis used tools, etc.

Primitive humans, as in, biologically modern humans with primitive technology. There are tribes (well, it might just be one) in Africa that still do it.

Yora
2009-09-15, 01:46 PM
WoW? Really? Where, as far as I'm aware, elves are among the slightest and shortest of the "medium" races? Not, say, Tolkien?
I have to say I've never seen any depiction of short elves, except in the races chapter of the 3rd Ed. PHB. Everywhere else, they seem very much human size.
Wait, NWN did it, which is weired, because FR elves aren't short.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 01:47 PM
Primitive humans, as in, biologically modern humans with primitive technology. There are tribes (well, it might just be one) in Africa that still do it.

What about Pigmi's?
Should we disregard them: Just because they are different species (can't breed with them)?

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 01:48 PM
Wait, Homlo erectus, Homlo habilis, archeaic Homlo sapian, or Australopltheecus?
Erectus use fire and team tactics, Habilis used tools, etc.

I was actually referring to Bronze Age humans. Even way back then, the Hunter-Gatherers of the world were capable of hunting down damn-near anything they wanted.

I actually don't know that much about pre-Bronze Age humans. I do know that, even in prehistoric times, primitive man was capable of hunting by stalking the prey until it collapsed, but it wasn't exactly a good idea due to lack of efficient protection.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-15, 01:57 PM
Lightning Warrior

Where is the Lightning Warrior from? I need to make sure my banhammer is up-to-date.

ex cathedra
2009-09-15, 02:03 PM
Where is the Lightning Warrior from? I need to make sure my banhammer is up-to-date.

It's very well made homebrew. Not for use in games, but for trolling, that is. It was in the Wizards archives, I don't know where to find it these days.

It's a full BAB, full casting spontaneous wizard without need for a spellbook. It gets the TWF tree for free. d20 HP.

But it can't specialize! Nor does it have a familiar.

Tehnar
2009-09-15, 02:04 PM
Its more efficient to walk on two legs then on 4. Also given the fact that humans can carry water and food with them on hunts, make them very formidable hunters even with the most primitive of technology.

There is actually a documentary of modern day humans hunting animals by running them down. All you need is a pair of sneakers, loincloth, a bottle of water and a spear to kill the animal in the end when it collapses from dehydration and exhaustion. And a marathon level endurance.

kamikasei
2009-09-15, 02:11 PM
What about Pigmi's?
Should we disregard them: Just because they are different species (can't breed with them)?

Huh? I don't know what you're asking. Incidentally, Pygmies are not a different species.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo) of a hunt.

Harperfan7
2009-09-15, 02:25 PM
Here's my two cp.

I'm an elf fanboy, I like them being short & small, yet also just as strong as humans and being good swordsmen and archers. It may not make much sense, but then tiny little japanese guys being just as strong as a big burly white guy twice their size doesn't make much sense either, but that's life.

It makes more sense, however, if they are tall and thin. It makes them resemble the trees they live with, and being tall and thin (not weak, though) is better for swordsmen and archers (longer reach, longer pull, less bulk to get in the way).

Anyways, does it matter at all? No.

If you want to play a tall elf in PHB D&D, go ahead, your DM will probably allow it, and vice versa for pathfinder.

paddyfool
2009-09-15, 02:54 PM
What about Pigmi's?
Should we disregard them: Just because they are different species (can't breed with them)?

??? "Pygmy" is a catch-all term for ethnic groups of unusually low height; the anthropologists' definition has it as being any ethnic group "of which the average adult male is less than 4'11 ". There's a whole range of genetic factors that can cause the shorter height, but I've never heard of any that prevent them from interbreeding with the rest of us. In fact, I know interbreeding goes on among the Twa in Uganda with the surrounding population, and would be very surprised if it doesn't also go on elsewhere.

EDIT:
I've also heard a theory that being shorter is an adaptation to forests. I'm not sure what evidence there is for this, however. It gets kind of interesting when you consider D&D elves, however...

On the subject of which,h why not apply this to your gaming so that everyone gets the elves they like? Have two distinct ethnic groups of elves, of two distinct heights. Treat them as identical otherwise to avoid the usual multivarietal trap that elves seem to fall into.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-15, 03:06 PM
I was actually referring to Bronze Age humans. Even way back then, the Hunter-Gatherers of the world were capable of hunting down damn-near anything they wanted.

I actually don't know that much about pre-Bronze Age humans. I do know that, even in prehistoric times, primitive man was capable of hunting by stalking the prey until it collapsed, but it wasn't exactly a good idea due to lack of efficient protection.
Wikipedia's got a pretty good article on Persistence Hunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting).

Yes, most people don't realize or ignore it, but physically speaking not many animals could take even an unarmed human being in mediocre shape. If the human being has moderate physical fitness (say, your average manual laborer/farmer/hunter) and a rock, all but the largest and fastest animals (the larger bears and cats, mostly) stand very little chance.

The reason that humans have no natural predators is not because of our brains or our civilization, at least not originally. Even without these, we're apex creatures, and nothing messes with apex creatures, not even other apex creatures. Even for the animals that could take a fit human being in a fight, the costs and risks involved would never be worthwhile. That bear will leave you alone if you look ready to fight not particularly because it's worried you'll win, but because it knows that it may be injured in such a fight and it won't be worth it.


Its more efficient to walk on two legs then on 4. Also given the fact that humans can carry water and food with them on hunts, make them very formidable hunters even with the most primitive of technology.
With our hands, yes, this is true. But bipedalism is not really more efficient, it's just the only way to properly take advantage of our hands. Since our ancestors had the hands, those which were able to use them more often/more easily were at an advantage.

But quadrupedalism is generally faster and takes far less sophisticated neural control.


There is actually a documentary of modern day humans hunting animals by running them down. All you need is a pair of sneakers, loincloth, a bottle of water and a spear to kill the animal in the end when it collapses from dehydration and exhaustion. And a marathon level endurance.
Actually, most creatures will collapse long before 26.2 miles, so you wouldn't need to run a marathon. And certainly not at a competitive speed. Just the ability to continue moving for four or five hours and being able to track the quarry would be sufficient, usually.

You could get by without the spear, too.

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 05:54 PM
Thirdly, LotR is the one with tall elves (and is also the origin of elves being better at zomgeverything).

LotR basicly took traditional european elves and made them nice.
Elves have traditionally been "zomgeverything" AND scarey MFs. They ranged from dangerous sociopaths to incredibly dangerous sociopaths, and yes, they tended to be taller than humans. Elric of Melnibournes race was also taken from the same source material (yes, he was an albino Elf).

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 06:55 PM
Yes, most people don't realize or ignore it, but physically speaking not many animals could take even an unarmed human being in mediocre shape. If the human being has moderate physical fitness (say, your average manual laborer/farmer/hunter) and a rock, all but the largest and fastest animals (the larger bears and cats, mostly) stand very little chance.

The reason that humans have no natural predators is not because of our brains or our civilization, at least not originally. Even without these, we're apex creatures, and nothing messes with apex creatures, not even other apex creatures. Even for the animals that could take a fit human being in a fight, the costs and risks involved would never be worthwhile. That bear will leave you alone if you look ready to fight not particularly because it's worried you'll win, but because it knows that it may be injured in such a fight and it won't be worth it.


Most animals are small, so technically you're right. most animals couldn't take on a man.

Apex creatures? As pack hunters? yes. As individuals without weapons? Give me a break.

It's true that most predators won't risk a serious fight against a similiar strength predator because a serious injury can kill then through starvation (psycho animals are different, which is why even the big predators look sideways at Wolverines). Hunt, including by humans, is a chancy procedure when fully healthy, let alone when injured. Which is why "Mankillers" are generally wounded predators, because men are easy prey (oh wait, that's against your theory. Oops, facts can be a pain))

Some of the larger Herbivores will kill humans for a snort and a giggle, take Hippos and Cape Buffalo.
ALL the apex land predators, and many of the secondaries will take an unarmed human (and a lightly armed one as well generally) apart if they feel so inclined. Grizzlies, Polar Bears, the big Cats, the largest of the small Cats, Crocs and Alligators (I'm including rivers as land), Wolf pack (individual wolves were lower on the predator ranking, but even there the odds would heavily favour the wolf against an unarmed human, and 2 wolves would probably take a lightly armed human).

All the larger herbivore could stomp an unarmed human into the mud, and most could do a lightly armed one as well. They don't because the common grazer/herbivore instinct is to move on when disturbed. Intelligent humans can use this against them by disturbing them and making them move again everytime they start to graze. Technically the method is actually speed starving them to death. Herbivores need to graze a lot to keep provided with energy. Carnivores (and practising omnivores) avoid this requirement by eating meat, which is a much quicker way of gaining energy (leaving aside the difficulty of getting the meat) so the grazer prey is been forced to expend energy while moving, but never given the chance to restock. It also helps that they'll tend to run in a circle, which the human can cut inside of and travel less distance. Again, smarts, not muscle. (note - fruits can also have a similiar effect to meat, but again humans can pre-pick the fruit and carry it).

Stephen E

kwanzaabot
2009-09-15, 06:57 PM
....
And in all technicality, humans are the top to the food chain for a reason. We actually are very capable beings, which is why the animals in the MM make no sense at all (Fact: Humans are more enduring than most animal IRL, even though modern day humans may not reflect this. Primitive humans hunted by stalking their prey until it collapsed from exhaustion; we even did so at a casual walking pace at times because we have a higher stamina than most of the animal kingdom). We may be physically weaker than some of the animals, but we can outlast them on sheer stamina alone.

I thought it was because our brains are capable of abstract thought, so we can outsmart our prey?

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 07:01 PM
Sinfire, I'm curious. Do you actually play 3.5.

Stephen E

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 07:02 PM
I thought it was because our brains are capable of abstract thought, so we can outsmart our prey?

Abstract thought doesn't come into play until much later. Toolmaking ability comes into play but isn't necessary for hunting, but for other tasks (clothing, shelter, transport, fighting other people, etc). You don't really need to be all that smart nor have many tools when you can literally run your prey to death.

kwanzaabot
2009-09-15, 07:16 PM
Abstract thought doesn't come into play until much later. Toolmaking ability comes into play but isn't necessary for hunting, but for other tasks (clothing, shelter, transport, fighting other people, etc). You don't really need to be all that smart nor have many tools when you can literally run your prey to death.

Our teeth aren't really all that useful for tearing flesh off a carcass. We need tools.
Another thing: if our ancestors had to starve their prey to death, they'd need to carry water with them so they didn't dehydrate before their prey did. We'd need to store water in bottles made from gourds or something, which implies too use.

And if our ancestors were smart enough to do that, I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that a pointed stick would be a lot more efficient. Hell, even chimpanzees, our closest living relatatives use tools to hunt (sticks to fish for termites, and pointed sticks to hunt bushbabies).

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 07:19 PM
-snip-

...true on all accounts. I think this means it's time for me to stop posting for the night.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 07:20 PM
Sinfire, I'm curious. Do you actually play 3.5.

Stephen E

Yes, I do. This is an extremely unusual question, considering I advocate 3.5 over 4E constantly. Why do you ask?

kwanzaabot
2009-09-15, 07:23 PM
...true on all accounts. I think this means it's time for me to stop posting for the night.

That's what you get for debating animals with me! :D

Starbuck_II
2009-09-15, 07:26 PM
Our teeth aren't really all that useful for tearing flesh off a carcass. We need tools.
Another thing: if our ancestors had to starve their prey to death, they'd need to carry water with them so they didn't dehydrate before their prey did. We'd need to store water in bottles made from gourds or something, which implies too use.

And if our ancestors were smart enough to do that, I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that a pointed stick would be a lot more efficient. Hell, even chimpanzees, our closest living relatatives use tools to hunt (sticks to fish for termites, and pointed sticks to hunt bushbabies).

Agreed, but we used the tools to at first tear at flesh at the site. We didn't grab it carry it back somewhere (some research shows).
We were largely scavengers (mostly cowards, but sometimes bullies if we could scare another killer away) waiting till another animal killed it.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 07:42 PM
Most animals are small, so technically you're right. most animals couldn't take on a man. Apex creatures? As pack hunters? yes. As individuals without weapons? Give me a break.

That's the thing: During humanity's hunter/gatherer days, we were pack hunters. The few soloists were either exiles, badasses, or insane enough to try it.


It's true that most predators won't risk a serious fight against a similiar strength predator because a serious injury can kill then through starvation (psycho animals are different, which is why even the big predators look sideways at Wolverines). Hunt, including by humans, is a chancy procedure when fully healthy, let alone when injured. Which is why "Mankillers" are generally wounded predators, because men are easy prey (oh wait, that's against your theory. Oops, facts can be a pain))

Mankillers have a tendency to target the weakest amongst human prey. This means children or senior citizens, or those seriously injured or those who are alone. I don't think a mankiller would try attacking a group of 3 or more, or even a pair of decently-healthy humans. The ones that do? End up getting killed usually.

Unarmed? No, we would have major trouble dealing with a mankiller. If we knew what to do in such situations, a human would stand a better chance. If the human can avoid the attacks long enough, then we can out-stamina them fairly easily. The predator would likely back down after nearly exhausting itself for 10 minutes trying to deliver a killing blow.


Some of the larger Herbivores will kill humans for a snort and a giggle, take Hippos and Cape Buffalo.

They would be the exception to the "Most" part. Most animals do not mess with Humans without reason. Anyone who knows anything about wild animals knows that there are some that are better off avoided, even if you are armed.


ALL the apex land predators, and many of the secondaries will take an unarmed human (and a lightly armed one as well generally) apart if they feel so inclined. Grizzlies, Polar Bears, the big Cats, the largest of the small Cats, Crocs and Alligators (I'm including rivers as land), Wolf pack (individual wolves were lower on the predator ranking, but even there the odds would heavily favour the wolf against an unarmed human, and 2 wolves would probably take a lightly armed human).

You wanna know something? A little training goes a long way. We can train ourselves to wrestle alligators, crocs, bears (most are not successful in this undertaking), the cats, and even wolves. We bred domesticated animals from natural offshoots of wolves and cats, didn't we? Hell, it wasn't even a croc that killed Steve Irwin, now was it? It was a fluke accident with a stingray and an idiotic move on his part (had he left the stinger in, he may very well have lived).

I'd wager that Steve Irwin would be on par with historical hunter-gatherers who's main prey was crocs and gators. He could out wrestle them long enough to put tools to good use, always "hunted" in decently sized packs, and even undertook a majority of his croc hunts unarmed until it was time to subdue the animal for proper transport.

In other words, all it would take is training and the proper equipment, and we could very easily take on several of the biggest predatory animals. We domesticated elephants, and there are those who have tamed bears (breed in captivity, but we had to start wild at least once).


All the larger herbivore could stomp an unarmed human into the mud, and most could do a lightly armed one as well. They don't because the common grazer/herbivore instinct is to move on when disturbed. Intelligent humans can use this against them by disturbing them and making them move again everytime they start to graze. Technically the method is actually speed starving them to death. Herbivores need to graze a lot to keep provided with energy. Carnivores (and practising omnivores) avoid this requirement by eating meat, which is a much quicker way of gaining energy (leaving aside the difficulty of getting the meat) so the grazer prey is been forced to expend energy while moving, but never given the chance to restock. It also helps that they'll tend to run in a circle, which the human can cut inside of and travel less distance. Again, smarts, not muscle. (note - fruits can also have a similiar effect to meat, but again humans can pre-pick the fruit and carry it).

Again, we have tamed elephants. Tigers even. True, they can still kill us, but that's how life goes. We're still at the top, and have been for thousands of years now. It ain't gonna change for a very long time, thanks largely in part to our ability to adapt.

BTW, we're more dangerous to ourselves than animals are to us. Compare the number of recorded animal deaths in China to the number of deaths caused in Vietnam alone. Then check the time frame. We kill more of our own faster than animals can kill us.

Says something about us being the top dog. It says other things too, but those are not the point I'm making here.

Akal Saris
2009-09-15, 07:49 PM
Yes, I do. This is an extremely unusual question, considering I advocate 3.5 over 4E constantly. Why do you ask?

He probably asked because all your friends play 4E =P

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 07:53 PM
He probably asked because all your friends play 4E =P

Several of them are willing to play 3.5, but they prefer 4E. We played 3.5 before 4E was even announced.

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 10:14 PM
Yes, I do. This is an extremely unusual question, considering I advocate 3.5 over 4E constantly. Why do you ask?

Some of the most entusiastic theorectical optimisers (as in lets see how we can break the system) that I've known didn't actually play 3.5. IIRC I remember Logic Ninja commenting he didn't like 3.5 and didn't play it.

I've sometimes wondered if this was common and influenced what seemed to me a confusion with what could be done with the system, as opposed to what is done with the system.
Thus you get Wizards been the absolute powerhouse in theory, but in practice IME they vary hugely and are seldom above "strong".

Stephen E

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-15, 10:44 PM
Some of the most entusiastic theorectical optimisers (as in lets see how we can break the system) that I've known didn't actually play 3.5. IIRC I remember Logic Ninja commenting he didn't like 3.5 and didn't play it.

I've sometimes wondered if this was common and influenced what seemed to me a confusion with what could be done with the system, as opposed to what is done with the system.
Thus you get Wizards been the absolute powerhouse in theory, but in practice IME they vary hugely and are seldom above "strong".

Stephen E


Logic Ninja is one of a handful. TreantMonkLVL 20 on the other hand, has played as far as I am aware. OW4 as well. The tactics and abilities advocated by the GOD handbook and the Batman guide have been confirmed by many players, and even more optimizers. In other words, the theory has been confirmed several times.

It isn't very common. I myself played a Soulborn and an Incarnate prior to even writing the Incarnum handbook (in fact, the only handbook I've written that I've had no prior experience with is the handbook for the Death Master Double-Lich, which is Dragon-content anyway and little more than a stupid trick involving a poorly thought out capstone class feature).

Edit: Theoretical optimization is different, FYI. Practical Optimization is backed by testing, research, and the opinions of DMs and Players familiar with the source of the information. Theoretical is just that, theory only. Pun-Pun is a theory, but Batman Wizards are an established, if disputed by non-optimizers, fact. One has the numbers and idea, the other has the numbers, idea, and testing. Two very different things that should never be confused.

For the record, if an optimizer who is known to be reasonable starts advocating theoretical optimization, it is wise to read that portion of his post as a harmless joke. If he begins arguing about how it works with others (beyond simply explaining how it works), then he is likely baiting. Or just doesn't know that he shouldn't be doing that.

Stephen_E
2009-09-15, 10:46 PM
That's the thing: During humanity's hunter/gatherer days, we were pack hunters. The few soloists were either exiles, badasses, or insane enough to try it.

And even then they didn't mess with the apex predators and hunting any of the large herbivores was considered damgerous and rarely done.




Mankillers have a tendency to target the weakest amongst human prey. This means children or senior citizens, or those seriously injured or those who are alone. I don't think a mankiller would try attacking a group of 3 or more, or even a pair of decently-healthy humans. The ones that do? End up getting killed usually.

Predators hunt the weakest. That includes humans preators as well.



Unarmed? No, we would have major trouble dealing with a mankiller. If we knew what to do in such situations, a human would stand a better chance. If the human can avoid the attacks long enough, then we can out-stamina them fairly easily. The predator would likely back down after nearly exhausting itself for 10 minutes trying to deliver a killing blow.

Actually everything I've read and seen on human performance, no we won't outlast them in combat mode. Human endurance at peak activity isn't that great. Persistance hunting is based on humans not working at peak performance.


You wanna know something? A little training goes a long way. We can train ourselves to wrestle alligators, crocs, bears (most are not successful in this undertaking), the cats, and even wolves. We bred domesticated animals from natural offshoots of wolves and cats, didn't we? Hell, it wasn't even a croc that killed Steve Irwin, now was it? It was a fluke accident with a stingray and an idiotic move on his part (had he left the stinger in, he may very well have lived).

So what you're saying is that intlligence is what matters. It should be noted that Steve Irwins stunts were done in carefully controlled conditions where the factors all favoured him. Even with training if you wrestle crocs and alligators in less than optimal conditions you will likely die. Make a habit of it and there's no likely about it. Humans can with training wrestle small bears. If you combat wrestle Grizzlies, Polar Bears, Tigers or Lions you will die. We domesticated canines from pups. The evidence is that we didn't domesticate cats. They domesticated us (and no, that's not a joke).



In other words, all it would take is training and the proper equipment, and we could very easily take on several of the biggest predatory animals. We domesticated elephants, and there are those who have tamed bears (breed in captivity, but we had to start wild at least once).

We domesticated Indian Elephants. Humans didn't domesticate the African Elephant. With a few exceptions bears haven't been domesticated, they've been broken. Severe physical abuse break most creatures, and at that you're talking about Black Bears.



Again, we have tamed elephants. Tigers even. True, they can still kill us, but that's how life goes. We're still at the top, and have been for thousands of years now. It ain't gonna change for a very long time, thanks largely in part to our ability to adapt.

I've already covered elephants, but no, we haven't tamed Tigers. Some people have made friends with Tigers, largely by socialising with them on the Tigers level, the same is true regarding grizzlies (I don't know if anyones been crazy enough to try it with Polar Bears). Tigers in particular, like most cats, are very social animals. You convince it that you are a tiger as well and presto, you can be friends, even be a dominant friend. Just keep in mind it can kill you by accident if it forgets that you're a fragile tiger. Other than that you're strying into the advantages of technology.


BTW, we're more dangerous to ourselves than animals are to us. Compare the number of recorded animal deaths in China to the number of deaths caused in Vietnam alone. Then check the time frame. We kill more of our own faster than animals can kill us.

OK. Now you're completely into technology and numbers. If there are 1 million humans and they kill 100 humans a year, and there are 100 tigers and they kill 2 humans a year, who the more dangerous killer of humans. The Tigers.

Stephen E

lsfreak
2009-09-15, 11:07 PM
Predators hunt the weakest. That includes humans preators as well.
With many predators, especially apex predators, it comes down to ease rather than weakest. If it's a bull zebra that breaks off the group in defense of the others rather than a weak zebra lagging behind, so be it.


We domesticated Indian Elephants. Humans didn't domesticate the African Elephant.
Hannibal used African elephants, as did other African-originated cultures.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-15, 11:19 PM
I thought it was because our brains are capable of abstract thought, so we can outsmart our prey?

To an extent, but we had to survive the interim part where are brains are not as good, while still been denied many of the animal kingdoms natural weapons. We were bipedal long before we had the ubersmarts we have today.

Drakyn
2009-09-15, 11:31 PM
With many predators, especially apex predators, it comes down to ease rather than weakest. If it's a bull zebra that breaks off the group in defense of the others rather than a weak zebra lagging behind, so be it.


Hannibal used African elephants, as did other African-originated cultures.

Wiki* sez that Hannibal's elephants were some sort of subspecies/species on their own, an offshoot of the main African elephant population. They were also probably smaller. And it points out they were probably more docile too, because African elephants are really, really, really hard to train. If they were as easy to tame as Asian elephants we'd have a lot more historical usage of them, not just the odd bit off in the distance.
Further wikification: you can't even really claim Asian elephants as true, 100% domesticates because the males still go nuts when they enter musth and have to be chained up, so lots of the working elephants have to be female (unless they're war elephants, because apparently the females will run from the males).

Anyways, long point made short, elephants are a bitch to tame. And if they're African elephants, they're a bitch and three quarters, and it isn't really worth the effort.

*Warning, this post contains copious amounts of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is made up of many individual bits of research glommed together, and may contain peanuts and be falsifiable. Why don't you go find a nice encyclopaedia from your bookcase and settle this yourself with assured accuracy, presuming recent edition availability. Also, you can drink hot chocolate while reading it, without fear of spilling it on a keyboard, mouse, or other electronic devilment. Why don't young people read more? They use those danged devil machines for everything. I bet it's because of moral decay in the fabric of society's bedsheets, which reminds me, you don't get the corners of your bedsheets turned down properly in a hotel nowadays. I think they forgot how and just don't want to admit it. Why, I myself forgot how to brush my teeth last Tuesday and I stood there waving the brush at eye height just so I didn't look indecisive. Appearance is everything, as I'm sure your mother would tell you. Have you talked to her recently? You know she looks forward to it. And another thing....

DragoonWraith
2009-09-16, 12:47 AM
Most animals are small, so technically you're right. most animals couldn't take on a man.

Apex creatures? As pack hunters? yes. As individuals without weapons? Give me a break.

It's true that most predators won't risk a serious fight against a similiar strength predator because a serious injury can kill then through starvation (psycho animals are different, which is why even the big predators look sideways at Wolverines). Hunt, including by humans, is a chancy procedure when fully healthy, let alone when injured. Which is why "Mankillers" are generally wounded predators, because men are easy prey (oh wait, that's against your theory. Oops, facts can be a pain))
If humans were easy prey, they'd be the regular prey. Wounded animals are desperate, and so will attack things they normally would not, because at that point they have less to lose - if they die in the fight, it makes no difference because they would have died of not fighting - and not eating - in a matter of days or weeks anyway. Yes, humans are large animals, and yes, there are larger animals still. One on one versus a wolf? A fit human has pretty good odds - but will likely be injured. One on one versus a lion, or a bear? Bigger animal, chances not looking so good at this point - as I mentioned.

At any rate, I'll admit to a bit of over-exaggeration in my post.


Some of the larger Herbivores will kill humans for a snort and a giggle, take Hippos and Cape Buffalo.
Some, but not many. And it mostly comes down to much greater mass at that point.


ALL the apex land predators, and many of the secondaries will take an unarmed human (and a lightly armed one as well generally) apart if they feel so inclined. Grizzlies, Polar Bears, the big Cats, the largest of the small Cats, Crocs and Alligators (I'm including rivers as land), Wolf pack (individual wolves were lower on the predator ranking, but even there the odds would heavily favour the wolf against an unarmed human, and 2 wolves would probably take a lightly armed human).
Grizzlies, polar bears, and big cats were those that I specifically mentioned as exceptions. I'd need a better idea of what you mean by "largest of the small cats" - what's your cut-off point? As for crocs and alligators, depends on whether or not the human knows how to fight them (which can be counter-intuitive), but I'd generally agree that they are another exception that I hadn't thought of - even shallow water gives them a considerable advantage and us a considerable disadvantage.


All the larger herbivore could stomp an unarmed human into the mud, and most could do a lightly armed one as well. They don't because the common grazer/herbivore instinct is to move on when disturbed. Intelligent humans can use this against them by disturbing them and making them move again everytime they start to graze. Technically the method is actually speed starving them to death. Herbivores need to graze a lot to keep provided with energy. Carnivores (and practising omnivores) avoid this requirement by eating meat, which is a much quicker way of gaining energy (leaving aside the difficulty of getting the meat) so the grazer prey is been forced to expend energy while moving, but never given the chance to restock. It also helps that they'll tend to run in a circle, which the human can cut inside of and travel less distance. Again, smarts, not muscle. (note - fruits can also have a similiar effect to meat, but again humans can pre-pick the fruit and carry it).
It certainly is both smarts and physical adaptation. I don't think I implied otherwise. I was only replying to the misconception that the human animal needs a gun to compete with other apex predators, which is not the case.


Our teeth aren't really all that useful for tearing flesh off a carcass. We need tools.
I don't know nearly enough to know, personally.


Another thing: if our ancestors had to starve their prey to death, they'd need to carry water with them so they didn't dehydrate before their prey did. We'd need to store water in bottles made from gourds or something, which implies too use.
Using gourds would certainly be a massive improvement, but I'm not sure it would be necessary. But again, I don't know enough to say.


And if our ancestors were smart enough to do that, I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that a pointed stick would be a lot more efficient. Hell, even chimpanzees, our closest living relatatives use tools to hunt (sticks to fish for termites, and pointed sticks to hunt bushbabies).
I'd believe it. Don't really know, though.

But still, even an unarmed attack by a human being is quite capable of severely injuring all but the largest animals.

Drakyn
2009-09-16, 01:06 AM
The reason humans aren't regular prey is because we don't fall within prey perimeters for most carnivores on the planet. We wandered out of Africa ten thousand+ years ago and spread like kudzu, using culture to change faster than genes ever could. Most animals have to learn fear of people, or fear of guns. Most predators have to learn that we're relatively slow and not really that bad a meal. Even then, they usually don't have the incentive to learn because we tend to travel in groups and wave pointy and burning objects at things.

Also, I'll agree that in a fight, the average human is absolutely screwed against most other large predators. The reason you hear so much noise when a guy manages to fracture a cougar's skull after it jumps him, or slits a bear's throat when it's trying to eat his dog, is because that sort of thing is dramatically against what we expect. Our natural weapons are not impressive - our teeth are pretty lousy, even for tearing meat, and we're not tremendously strong. We do not have claws. We are not especially quick or agile. We are not especially durable. Our senses are, for the most part, unexceptional. And although we have very good endurance, it doesn't matter if you can run three miles farther than the tiger without stopping when it can overtake you inside fifty feet.

We really do live on two things: cooperation and brains. A guy vs a wolf is in trouble. A guy with a spear, which he knows how to use, is a world ahead of his prior situation. A guy with a spear he knows how to use with a friend watching his back, is just dandy.



But still, even an unarmed attack by a human being is quite capable of severely injuring all but the largest animals.
If we're going to average out animal size, I'd expect we'd end up with the median bulk of the beetle family. If we're going to only use vertebrates, I think it's something like rat-sized. So yes, an unarmed attack by a human being can severely injure or kill all but the largest animals/vertebrates, because most of them are tiny. On the other hand, when we get to things roughly our mass or above, without our tools, we're probably screwed more often than not.

Stephen_E
2009-09-16, 01:09 AM
If humans were easy prey, they'd be the regular prey. Wounded animals are desperate, and so will attack things they normally would not, because at that point they have less to lose - if they die in the fight, it makes no difference because they would have died of not fighting - and not eating - in a matter of days or weeks anyway. Yes, humans are large animals, and yes, there are larger animals still. One on one versus a wolf? A fit human has pretty good odds - but will likely be injured. One on one versus a lion, or a bear? Bigger animal, chances not looking so good at this point - as I mentioned.

Humans taste funny. We're an aquirred taste. It's the high salt levels IIRC. Also there isn't anything arround alive currently that has the habit of hunt humans. Mum teachs children what to eat. It's been a while since mums that ate humans got to teach kids. Although it should be noted that as recently as approx 2oo years ago wolves would hunt humans in the streets of paris in a really bad winter, and there was a case of a wolf pack that used a village as it's private larder. Eating it down house by house until spring. There were a few household left alive at that point to report the event.



Grizzlies, polar bears, and big cats were those that I specifically mentioned as exceptions. I'd need a better idea of what you mean by "largest of the small cats" - what's your cut-off point? As for crocs and alligators, depends on whether or not the human knows how to fight them (which can be counter-intuitive), but I'd generally agree that they are another exception that I hadn't thought of - even shallow water gives them a considerable advantage and us a considerable disadvantage.

Large Cats roar, small cats scream. Cougars are small cats (Big small cats). Offhand I'n not sure about Jaguars. I'm not sure, but I think big cats might not be able to purr either.


But still, even an unarmed attack by a human being is quite capable of severely injuring all but the largest animals.

I'll let you make that unarmed attack against that wolverine. I wanted to keep my limbs.

Just remembered. Wild Boars/Pigs have also been known to deliberately hunt humans, despite technically be herbivores.

Stephen E

DragoonWraith
2009-09-16, 01:19 AM
Humans taste funny. We're an aquirred taste. It's the high salt levels IIRC. Also there isn't anything arround alive currently that has the habit of hunt humans.
That's interesting. Never heard that before.


Mum teachs children what to eat. It's been a while since mums that ate humans got to teach kids. Although it should be noted that as recently as approx 2oo years ago wolves would hunt humans in the streets of paris in a really bad winter, and there was a case of a wolf pack that used a village as it's private larder. Eating it down house by house until spring. There were a few household left alive at that point to report the event.
A wolf pack is massively more difficult to manage than a lone wolf, and arguably more so than a large cat or bear. And even then, I'm sure the wolves in both cases were taking advantage of vulnerable targets - isolated, weaker, etc. Even if they could take down a healthy adult, there wouldn't be much reason to.


Large Cats roar, small cats scream. Cougars are small cats (Big small cats). Offhand I'n not sure about Jaguars. I'm not sure, but I think big cats might not be able to purr either.
OK, I certainly was including cougars when I said large cats. I was not aware that there was a technical definition...


I'll let you make that unarmed attack against that wolverine. I wanted to keep my limbs.
I didn't say it would be a good idea, I just said it wouldn't be a particularly good idea for the other animal to start the fight either.


Just remembered. Wild Boars/Pigs have also been known to deliberately hunt humans, despite technically be herbivores.
Wild boards are absolutely insane, though. Still, point taken. Their hides would make it very difficult to injure them without a weapon.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 04:02 AM
And if our ancestors were smart enough to do that, I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that a pointed stick would be a lot more efficient. Hell, even chimpanzees, our closest living relatatives use tools to hunt (sticks to fish for termites, and pointed sticks to hunt bushbabies).

What exactly are you disputing here? You can't very well prove by argument that humans wouldn't hunt by running down their prey to exhaustion, because some groups do that.

Fitz
2009-09-16, 04:31 AM
hannibal used african forest elephants, which were smaller and more docile than asian elephants. The african bush elephant has not be recorded as used in warfare to my memory. (will dig out orig sources later)
Fitz

Kurald Galain
2009-09-16, 04:41 AM
I have to say I've never seen any depiction of short elves, except in the races chapter of the 3rd Ed. PHB.

ElfQuest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfquest)...

kwanzaabot
2009-09-16, 04:52 AM
What exactly are you disputing here? You can't very well prove by argument that humans wouldn't hunt by running down their prey to exhaustion, because some groups do that.

I'm saying that it's unlikely our ancestors did this, and if they did, it certainly wasn't the norm.

Also:


...You convince it that you are a tiger as well and presto, you can be friends, even be a dominant friend. Just keep in mind it can kill you by accident if it forgets that you're a fragile tiger. Other than that you're strying into the advantages of technology.

I'm guessing this was more of a general, offhand kind of statement, but I'd like to point out that tigers are solitary animals. If you convince a tiger that you're a tiger too, one of two things (possibly both) will happen: the tiger will kill you, or it'll try to have sex with you.

AslanCross
2009-09-16, 05:11 AM
It's rather strange that elves being taller is derided as being symptomatic of elf fanboyism, as even Tolkien describes them as incredibly tall. Galadriel was 6'4", while Elu Thingol might have been as tall as 9'. (Then again, even the Edain were quite tall, with Elendil being around 7'11".)

Source (http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/papers/heights.htm)

Stephen_E
2009-09-16, 06:01 AM
ElfQuest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfquest)...

Actually elves were tall in Elfquest.

The damaged immature (they basically stopped grwing at child point sort of) elves were short.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-09-16, 06:13 AM
I'm guessing this was more of a general, offhand kind of statement, but I'd like to point out that tigers are solitary animals. If you convince a tiger that you're a tiger too, one of two things (possibly both) will happen: the tiger will kill you, or it'll try to have sex with you.

Actually Tigers are quite social animals. They do need a lot of terrotory to provide food, but they really are social. The solitary nature myth was caused by early researh been done during daylight. When they set up remote inight vision cameras they found that tigers do their socalising in the dark in the wild. When food supply is plentiful, such as the tigers living with those german magians, they happily socalise during the day.

Stephen E

Kurald Galain
2009-09-16, 06:25 AM
Actually elves were tall in Elfquest.
Although the original ones are (the High Ones, as well as Savah and Winnowill), the vast majority of the protagonists are short - i.e. all the wolfriders and most of the sunfolk. Even the tall ones are only as tall as humans, not more (and shorter than some humans, e.g. Olbar or Grohmul).

In the case of wolfriders, that could have been because of their wolf blood - but that doesn't explain why Leetah is as tall as Cutter.

Stephen_E
2009-09-16, 06:50 AM
That's interesting. Never heard that before.


A wolf pack is massively more difficult to manage than a lone wolf, and arguably more so than a large cat or bear. And even then, I'm sure the wolves in both cases were taking advantage of vulnerable targets - isolated, weaker, etc. Even if they could take down a healthy adult, there wouldn't be much reason to.

The village the wplf pack ripped there way into houses one at a time and killed everyone in there. Adults, children, old folks, and these people would have been armed with light weapons at the least and some would've had firearms.
Why did they do it. I did mention it was a really bad winter. Normal prey got really scarce and humans drop onto the menu. As a general rule wolves are at least up with the smartest dogs.



OK, I certainly was including cougars when I said large cats. I was not aware that there was a technical definition...

I've picked up many odd bits of information. Do you know there have been many species of sabertooth tigers, some of them having serrated edges on the back of their incisors, and one even having blood gutters on them. There was even a species the size of a household cat, with 3" incisors.



I didn't say it would be a good idea, I just said it wouldn't be a particularly good idea for the other animal to start the fight either.

Wolverines have been known to attack humans that get inbetween them and something they wanted. If you were a martial artist and managed to stop ii closing on you you could win. Big IF in that. Otherwise your chance of survival would be veru small. It only has to grapple once and it will kill you or start you bleeding out and then circle till you die and then eat you and piss on your corpse. Cute in a nasty psychopathic sort of way.

Then there's chimpanzees. Cute funny sort of creatures a fraction of the size of an adult human male. Capable of tearing your arm of and beating you to death with it, if it doesn't simply rip your face of with it's jaws.

Seriously the unarmed full strength human male is way low on the totem pole. The main protection they have against predators is these days we're not on anyones natural menu. In hunter-gather days humans avoided apex predators, even in a group. We could fake been tough but for our bulk we are weak and crunchy. Technology is what makes us nasty. In short the most dangerous weapon a human has is it's brain.

Stephen E

Murdim
2009-09-16, 07:50 AM
It's rather strange that elves being taller is derided as being symptomatic of elf fanboyism, as even Tolkien describes them as incredibly tall. Galadriel was 6'4", while Elu Thingol might have been as tall as 9'. (Then again, even the Edain were quite tall, with Elendil being around 7'11".)

Source (http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/papers/heights.htm)

Well...

1) Tolkien made his elves tall since the very start. He was not "correcting" anything to make his elves more awesome. Yes, their size had a clear signification of superiority to begin with, but this isn't nearly as full of jarring implications than Paizo taking comparatively small elves and making them noticeably taller than humans.

2) Tolkien elves are supposed to be better than everyone in every way. This is clearly and officially stated and, more importantly, justified in his mythology. Elves are NOT "different from but equivalent to" humans the same way hobbits or even dwarves are ; they're mystical creatures from a lost age of light and magic. In the era The Hobbit and LotR take place, they act more as remnants of these times than as a classical fantasy race. In other words, Tolkien knew how to make his Sues interesting. Of course, those you want to have super-awesome Tolkien-like elves usually stop at the "better than everyone in every way" part, and considers that's enough to make them look mysterious and alien rather than simply insufferable.

3) Corollary to the precedent point : when you want to use elves as a normal race among others and/or you lack the writing skill of Tolkien (Paizo being firmly in both situations), trying to make your elves look more like the "super awesome" ones in the SdA is a bad idea. There's a reason why elves are so diversified from a fictional world to another, while dwarves are pretty much the same everywhere and orcs essentially come in two flavors. It's because authors conceive their elves either as "like Tolkien's, only better" author avatars, or as a subversion of the usual elf stereotype (read : firstly and mostly Tolkien's) in some way.

Drakyn
2009-09-16, 09:46 AM
Large Cats roar, small cats scream. Cougars are small cats (Big small cats). Offhand I'n not sure about Jaguars. I'm not sure, but I think big cats might not be able to purr either.
On a completely random note, something interesting: they CAN purr...but they can only do it on the exhale. Small cats can do it while inhaling too, producing a nice constant murmur. And it looks like Big Cats are defined as a loosehand term for everything in the Panthera genus, which consists of the Leopard, Tiger, Lion, and Jaguar. And sometimes the Snow Leopard.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-16, 09:51 AM
jarring implications than Paizo taking comparatively small elves and making them noticeably taller than humans.

...like what? The elven population singlehandedly causing the fabric and textiles trade to boom several thousandfold overnight during the editionswap?

Set
2009-09-16, 10:19 AM
Elves have traditionally been "zomgeverything" AND scarey MFs. They ranged from dangerous sociopaths to incredibly dangerous sociopaths, and yes, they tended to be taller than humans. Elric of Melnibournes race was also taken from the same source material (yes, he was an albino Elf). Stephen E

That's my favorite interpretation of elves. Creatures of such strong passions, living utterly 'in the moment,' that they are dangerous to be around. The wrong comment, the wrong mood, and your 'best friend' will gut you like a trout. Five seconds later, he might be wailing about it. Five seconds after that, he's forgotten your name.

[non-elf-tangent]The stuff on big cats was also a fun read, as someone who grew up raising big cats for animal parks and zoos.[/tangent]

BobVosh
2009-09-16, 10:47 AM
[non-elf-tangent]The stuff on big cats was also a fun read, as someone who grew up raising big cats for animal parks and zoos.[/tangent]

Is the purring thing correct? Also do you know what the difference between small/large cats then?

Cyclocone
2009-09-16, 10:54 AM
Pimp Krusk>>>>>>>>>>Elven Mafia. What are the fairies going to do to someone like him? Nothing.

But Pathfinder gnomes have a racial +2 to Profession, so they can out-pimp anyone.:smallbiggrin:

BTW, if anyone isn't familiar with pimp Krusk:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/compscoundrel_gallery/102037.jpg

Drakyn
2009-09-16, 11:01 AM
Is the purring thing correct? Also do you know what the difference between small/large cats then?

On a completely random note, something interesting: they CAN purr...but they can only do it on the exhale. Small cats can do it while inhaling too, producing a nice constant murmur. And it looks like Big Cats are defined as a loosehand term for everything in the Panthera genus, which consists of the Leopard, Tiger, Lion, and Jaguar. And sometimes the Snow Leopard.

Also, further wiki-ing shows that "big cats" is informal and can mean either "everything in the genus Panthera" or "everything in the genus Panthera plus cougars, snow leopards, and cheetahs."
As an aside, only the Panthera bunch of tigers/lions/leopards/jaguars can roar.

EDIT: Also, I'm an idiot and didn't notice who that was directed at in specifics. Got any awesome stories, Set?

Stephen_E
2009-09-16, 11:15 AM
Thanks about the big cats purring. It seemed strange if they couldn't purr at all. It's way to good an evolutionary advantage. I remember coming across a paper on the subjct years back where they found that the vibration level of purring stimulates healing, which helps explain there high rate of healing, and in part the effect on healing of injured people who have cats cuddling up to them a lot.

I still which the mini sabertooth cats existed. I'd love a housecat (sort of) with 3" fangs. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-16, 11:32 AM
The tale of the wolf-pack using the Village as a personal Larder is amusingly grim (but frankly, kind of impressive on the wolves side.)

Really, on a pure physical one-to-one level, we don't stand a chance against any animal of even remotely comparable mass, without using at least crude tools.

I recall, apparently, if you drop a baby gorilla on it's head, it basically just bounces harmlessly. We're made of eggshells and paper.

Crow
2009-09-16, 12:06 PM
BTW, if anyone isn't familiar with pimp Krusk:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/compscoundrel_gallery/102037.jpg

Ember looks like she could shoulder-press a volkswagon.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-16, 03:33 PM
I'm saying that it's unlikely our ancestors did this, and if they did, it certainly wasn't the norm.
The theory says otherwise. There are other theories, and I'm not exactly an evolutionary biologist or theoretical anthropologist (I actually don't even know what field this would fall in), but as far as I can tell, it does seem to be the leading theory (but again, not without competition).

The persistence hunt may well have been the first form of hunting practiced by hominids. It is likely that this method of hunting evolved before humans invented projectile weapons, such as darts, spears, or slings. Since they could not kill their prey from a distance and were not fast enough to catch the animal, the only reliable way to kill it would have been to run it down over a long distance.

In this regard one has to bear in mind that, as hominids adapted to bipedalism they would have lost some speed, becoming less able to catch prey with short, fast charges. They would, however, have gained endurance and become better adapted to persistence hunting. The evolution of the distinctively human sweating apparatus and relative hairlessness would have given hunters an additional advantage by keeping their bodies cool in the midday heat.


The village the wplf pack ripped there way into houses one at a time and killed everyone in there. Adults, children, old folks, and these people would have been armed with light weapons at the least and some would've had firearms.
Why did they do it. I did mention it was a really bad winter. Normal prey got really scarce and humans drop onto the menu. As a general rule wolves are at least up with the smartest dogs.
Well, that does favor what you said about the reasons why wolves don't usually hunt humans. I wouldn't really know.

But if there were firearms involved, this must have been a very large pack to pull it off. There would certainly have been casualties.


I've picked up many odd bits of information. Do you know there have been many species of sabertooth tigers, some of them having serrated edges on the back of their incisors, and one even having blood gutters on them. There was even a species the size of a household cat, with 3" incisors.
That is bizarre. Wow.


Wolverines have been known to attack humans that get inbetween them and something they wanted. If you were a martial artist and managed to stop ii closing on you you could win. Big IF in that. Otherwise your chance of survival would be veru small. It only has to grapple once and it will kill you or start you bleeding out and then circle till you die and then eat you and piss on your corpse. Cute in a nasty psychopathic sort of way.
Wolverines have also been known to be absolutely insane. Not many animals more aggressive than a wolverine. Probably not even the wild boar you mentioned in the last post.


Then there's chimpanzees. Cute funny sort of creatures a fraction of the size of an adult human male. Capable of tearing your arm of and beating you to death with it, if it doesn't simply rip your face of with it's jaws.
Yeah, I was aware that Chimpanzees were A. very aggressive and B. very strong for their size.


Seriously the unarmed full strength human male is way low on the totem pole. The main protection they have against predators is these days we're not on anyones natural menu. In hunter-gather days humans avoided apex predators, even in a group. We could fake been tough but for our bulk we are weak and crunchy. Technology is what makes us nasty. In short the most dangerous weapon a human has is it's brain.
Well, I certainly didn't argue otherwise; the fact that I'm typing on a computer is enough to know that the brain is most potent. Still, I'll agree with you; my post was exaggerated in response to people's common over-exaggeration in the other direction (assumption that we're physically useless, which is not true, even if several animals are stronger).

paddyfool
2009-09-16, 03:55 PM
Two things on animals and humans:

- I've heard it said that one reason other predators avoid humans because we eat meat, and therefore smell like fellow predators. Fellow predators are generally both dangerous and bad to eat. Of course, there's also the learned response argument, which brings me to...

- The general reason you'll see more large wild animals in Africa than the rest of the world combined is thought by some theorists to be that animals in Africa evolved alongside humanity, and developed defenses against us. The rest of the world's megafauna weren't quite so lucky, and often ended up in the pot. Of course, as humanity's expansion roughly coincides with the end of the last ice age, it can be hard to pick out which of these two factors was responsible for any individual species; quite possibly not all the extinctions were on account of us.